California Case Summaries: April 26 to May 4, 2018

I publish California Case Summaries to help lawyers serve their clients and justice. To visit my website and get my summaries click here.
Below are three free samples of my short, organized civil case summaries.

California Supreme Court
Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) _ Cal. 5th _ , 2018 WL 1999120: The California Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeal decision denying a writ petition challenging the decision of the trial court’s order certifying a class action by delivery drivers alleging wage and hour and other Labor code violations. The California Supreme Court ruled that the “suffer or permit to work” definition of “employ” contained in a wage order may be relied upon in evaluating whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor for determining the obligations imposed by the wage order. The wage order’s suffer or permit to work definition must be interpreted broadly to treat as “employees” and provide protection to all workers who would ordinarily be viewed as working in the hiring business, but it should not include the type of individual workers, like independent plumbers or electricians, who have traditionally been viewed as genuine independent contractors who are working only in their own independent business. The “ABC” test should be used to determine if a worker is an independent contractor. A worker is properly considered an independent contractor to whom a wage order does not apply only if the hiring entity establishes: (A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact; (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity. (April 30, 2018.)

California Courts of Appeal 
Baker Marquart LLP v. Kantor (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 1940490: The Court of Appeal reversed the trial court’s order denying a petition to vacate an arbitration award regarding attorney fees. Petitioner represented respondent in a contingency matter. After the matter concluded, respondent demanded fee arbitration. Before the arbitration, respondent submitted an ex parte “confidential arbitration brief” that was not served on petitioner. The confidential brief raised and argued additional claims not presented in the arbitration demand. A majority of the arbitration panel ruled in respondent’s favor and awarded him a refund of a portion of the fees he had paid to petitioner, relying on claims respondent raised in the confidential brief. Because petitioner had no true opportunity to respond to the new claims raised in the confidential brief, the arbitration award was vacated because it was procured by “undue means” in violation of Code of Civil Procedure, section 1286.2. (C.A. 2nd, April 25, 2018.)
Hernandez v. Rancho Santiago Community College District (2018) _ Cal.App.5th _ , 2018 WL 2057468: The Court of Appeal affirmed the judgment for plaintiff in the sum of $723,746, following a bench trial. Plaintiff, who was a probationary employee for one year, was terminated while she was on disability leave because her performance had not been reviewed. She sued under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA; Government Code, section 12940(m),(n)) contending that defendant failed to make reasonable accommodation for her medical condition and failed to engage in an interactive process. The trial court properly ruled that defendant could have accommodated plaintiff by extending her probationary period, by deducting the four months she was on disability leave from her probationary period, or by adding the time away from work to the probationary period. (C.A. 4th, May 3, 2018.)

California Case Summaries™
I publish my new civil case summaries every other Monday. I offer a free version, a monthly subscription version, and a quarterly subscription version. To visit my website to sign up or subscribe click here.

Mediation, Arbitration and Referee Services 
When you need an experienced and capable mediator who knows the law to help settle a case, or you need an experienced and capable arbitrator or referee who knows the law and will give you a friendly, fair hearing and will issue a fair and impartial decision, contact my case manager at ADR Services to schedule your matter. My case manager is Christopher Schuster, email:, phone: (619) 233-1323.
Do well and be well.

Best regards,

Monty A. McIntyre, Esq.
Publisher of California Case Summaries™
Mediator, Arbitrator & Referee at ADR Services, Inc.
Civil Trial Lawyer | ABOTA National Board Member | CA Lawyer Since 1980
For scheduling contact my case manager Christopher Schuster at ADR Services. Phone: (619) 233-1323
Mediation Web: Monty’s phone: (619) 990-4312.

Leave A Response

* Denotes Required Field